witness-7's Reviews

Curb Your Enthusiasm (2000–2024)

2/10

4 April 2020

I never quite understood this show, despite giving it 10 seasons to enlighten me. I am not sure if I am more a masochist than the show's characters. But this show has always played out like all of the irritating and annoying parts or Seinfeld's George Costanza with none of the humor, none of the likability, and none of the potential for redemption. It's a bleak show that portrays humor as annoyance, as irritation, at self-aggrandized senses of personal injustice.

It's difficult to make good stories about loathsome characters that somehow you still manage to support as an anti-hero. The amazing thing about this series is that it managed to attempt this for 10 seasons without succeeding just once.

Clearly it's a specific taste. I find humor in the lowball slime of an "It's Sunny in Philadelphia" or "Broad City" or even "Workaholics", much to the dismay of my significant other. But there's a difference between dark comedy and comedy that celebrates hitting bottom and comedy that celebrates blowing up trivial annoyances and irritation. At least for me, it's hard to laugh when the empathy is completely absent and you'd like to see characters cosmically killed off to put them out of their, and your, misery. And that's Curb.

12 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Ice on Fire (2019)

5/10

Techno-solutionist dreams absolve us from the responsibility for changing our behavior

16 July 2019

First, the good. Without resorting to cloying scare tactics, the doc does a decent job of outlining the science behind how our world is changing and the dangers it represents. The doc also has access to a number of interesting early projects backed by research data that could make a real impact on our drawdown requirements for carbon and methane sequestration. Paul Hawken is a particularly great interview subject given his efforts behind Project Drawdown.

But then the not-so-good. It completely worships at the "new technology will save the day" altar. For anyone who has worked with the best climate models available to us, you learn really quickly how unrealistic that is. Nuclear power took 20 years to roll out the infrastructure at scale for example, and the world will cook in the interim.

Technology is a part of the strategy, but it isn't enough. The doc does lend credence to the "silver buckshot" vs "silver bullet" thinking, but it puts all its eggs in the new tech basket. This also absolves humans of their responsibilities to necessarily change our comsumption-driven ways of thinking and living. It's as if we are told we can continue eating cheeseburgers and living a sedentary lifestyle because our doctor can come up with a new magical diet pill and we won't need to change a thing.

New technologies also always introduce as many new problems as the ones they attempt to solve. There is no attempt to qualify or quantify that. Let's seed the oceans with iron filings and create bubbles to carbonate the ocean! It's the magic diet pill with no side effects.

The strength of a documentary is in how it tells a complete story, not just a weighted account. As such, this doc ran more like cheerleading piece for how new geoengineering technologies will save us with no harmful side-effects -- which is ignorant at best and dangerous at worst. All we need to do is call our senator.

10 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Inside Out (I) (2015)

6/10

Why did Pixar remake the TV show "Herman's Head"?

6 February 2016

Warning: Spoilers

If you remember the early 90s TV show, Herman's Head, you probably know about how its impact on TV was more how its cast powered The Simpsons. And if you remember the premise at all, you'd remember how silly an idea it was.

Which makes it shocking that Pixar decided to essentially turn it into an animated movie about an 11-year-old girl disaffected by a family move.

Minor character spoilers ahead - but nothing you wouldn't see in a movie review.

The execution is generally Pixar quality. But there are some major story design flaws. Why is Joy the dominant emotion and the rest are just problems? They tried to make peace with it through Sadness later on, but it still came off as a forced attempt to validate the value of any of her other emotions.

The rest is very much an Alice in Wonderland/Wizard of Oz story, which is great for kids. Good humor. Some cute staging of scenes. But the 11-year-old played by Amy Poehlers voice is very one-dimensional in her transformation.

There are enough Pixar employees who capture San Francisco quite well, but this might have worked better as a kid moving to Minnesota.

3 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Baskets (2016–2019)

2/10

Unwatchable

26 January 2016

I love Louis CK and his unorthodox comedy writing for his show as well. And Galifianakis can pull a lot off from deadpan comedy to tweaks. But this show is one massive fail.

The entire construct depends on the audience finding that clowns and French accents are a sure-fire recipe for hilarity. The show tries too hard at both, and its attempts to force the comedy reminds me of the worst of comedy movies like "Cabin Boy" with Chris Elliott.

Unfortunately if the concept of deadpanning a clown school or French accents on face value alone doesn't work, the actual comedy writing behind the show is flimsy thin and over-earnest.

It really makes Bobcat Goldthwait's "Shakes The Clown" literally seem like the Citizen Kane of alcoholic clown movies. Which it is, but this show is such a stark reminder of how shallow it is compared to Goldthwait's effort.

26 out of 77 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Trip to Italy (2014)

5/10

Beavis & Butthead for the BBC set

27 July 2014

As with their first "The Trip", I've had ambivalent feelings about these Coogan/Brydon travel/food/comedy serials. This new series follows much of the first.

If you loved the first, that's good news. But the program is a mixed bag to where you really have to call out the good and the bad.

First, the good. Coogan and Brydon have a great personal chemistry that comes off in the series as something unscripted. The locations are gorgeous, and the soundtrack adds to the grandeur of place. The series is also somewhat groundbreaking in introducing a genre of travel-food- comedy, which has its merits.

The restaurants featured in the series are researched and quite extraordinary. And the literary trail of the likes of Byron and Shelley add a cultural relevance to the program where, I would have to say, I would enjoy partaking in such a Magical Mystery Tour myself.

Next, the bad. If you removed the impersonations of Michael Caine, Sean Connery, etc., 70% of the program would be on the cutting room floor. There are few themes of humor in the program, and they are mercilessly beaten to an absolute pulp. Can you imagine spending a week-long vacation in Italy with a friend who basically ran the same gag everywhere you went?

This makes the program the Beavis & Butthead of the BBC set. If the gag gets old or doesn't work for you, the show has little else to offer you besides a few good visual scenes with the sound turned off.

Like the Magical Mystery Tour, the show's arc comes off as rather aimless and without a real destination. If the joy is in the travel, and some of it is, that would be one thing. But if there's no joy in bad impersonation banter of actors from years gone by, there's too much to redeem itself.

As a whole, the program offers glimpses of creative ideas and possibilities while failing to execute to their potential. Injecting an actual scriptwriter might have seemed anathema to the program's vision and goals, but there are few programs I've seen this year that so sorely could have improved with just one decent writer.

35 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

A Dog's Will (2000)

4/10

Lost in Cultural Translation

14 July 2014

I viewed this movie based on the many recommendations here and elsewhere. I'm no stranger to Brazilian cinema, though I do not profess to be anything close to familiar with it -- at least with comedy. (More from the drama and crime veins.) And I know enough of Portuguese to barely get by (and even have a native Portuguese-speaking wife).

The story is over-acted, but you kind of have to give it a pass for that as an adaptation from the original stage play. So manners, expressions, and exchanges are all exaggerated for the stage but put on film. It comes on pretty thick.

Then there's the subject matter of the story and comedy itself. I love parody, but the sort of social, class, and religious satire that dominates this movie seems very predictable and trite from a modern American's perspective. Here's where I think much of it was lost in translation for me: cultural and historical translation. The jokes seem forced, and many of the situations follow the absurd misunderstandings of an episode of 1970s TV's "Three's Company".

I can only guess that the subject matter may have been taboo or shocking at the time to make cynical jokes about how, say, the priesthood might respond differently based on money and class. But in today's world where we have the realities of child abuse scandals and the like, it comes off too dated and quaint to have much impact by comparison to all that we know today.

The comedy itself lacks variety, relentlessly focusing on the topic of social, class, and religious stratifications and hypocrisies. As such it's quite one dimensional, so if the social play of poor people tricking more influential people to interpret things differently according to their egos and financial interests doesn't provide a wealth of laughs for you, the movie falls completely flat and drones on the topic incessantly.

I made it through to the end, but I kind of wish I had stopped sooner. Definitely for specific tastes of humor.

10 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Low Winter Sun (2013)

5/10

Too many reasons to prefer the UK version thus far

12 August 2013

There have been some solid American remakes of UK TV shows: All in the Family to Life on Mars. But there's also shows like "Coupling" too. This series seems to fit somewhere in the middle.

On the plus side, the acting isn't bad. The storyline has its multiple levels: it doesn't dumb itself down for the audience. And Detroit is an excellent choice of settings for this US remake.

On the negatives: my kingdom for a steady-cam. Are directors so infantile as to still believe the tired trope from Hill Street Blues that the more amateurish the guy holding the camera, the more it's supposed to feel like a documentary. Fail #1.

Fail #2: good directors make you care about the characters involved and some of the storyline before the blood and guts come out and create a visceral reaction. Unfortunately, this show opted straight for the violence as a cloying attempt to capture you're interest immediately -- except that it's performed on characters you know nothing about and have zero investment with. Maybe if I was 7 years old, but not as an adult.

Fail #3: the best dark shows often have comedic elements -- even if it's dark comedy -- to lighten up the pace. But this show is written with no redeeming moments -- no mood lighteners, no dark humor, no cracks. As such, it's a bit like listening to a 60-minute bass solo. Maybe you love bass, but it loses it's strength if that's all you get all the time. Darkness just has more impact when you get a reminder of the light once in a while. There is no light in this show.

Fail #4: Closing scenes where the actors emote to the soundtrack. Cheesy to the extreme.

51 out of 82 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

4/10

Tired formula needs a mercy killing

5 July 2013

Warning: Spoilers

Strip away the visuals and the cinematography, and this movie screams self-parody. There's nothing new to say in this franchise that hasn't been beaten over your head in previous movies. It's no Batman Begins or the Dark Knight, which were solid movies. But this time the franchise jumped the shark.

The formula broke under the weight of its own hyperbole. So tired and overwrought, I completely lost interest. Self-important high drama, big bad city terrorism, evil trying to outdo itself with every sequel, fabricated family drama we've seen many flavors of before. Even the surprises were no longer surprises.

I felt nothing watching this flick. Well, with the exception that I just wanted everybody to die in a fiery ball of neutron bomb death to end the franchise as a mercy killing.

Please make it stop, Nolan.

2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Modern Family (2009–2020)

6/10

A weaker, pop-oriented reboot try at Sons & Daughters

26 June 2012

I really tried to get into this show for its first year or two. But I was only repeatedly reminded of how much better I enjoyed the 2006 TV series, "Sons & Daughters".

Modern Family is a bit over-earnest -- it tries too hard in its originality -- and seems to concede to too many network television requirements in order to sustain itself to a broader, pop audience. The characters are more contrived and less creative than "Sons & Daughters", and the strain and weight keeps the show from taking off. Forced comedy is rarely good comedy.

That said, Modern Family is still a decent show. When you contrast it with most of the formulaic sitcom driven that has dominated the airwaves for the past decade, it might seem like a revelation. But it lacks the greatness, lightness, and creative flair that Sons & Daughters had. I'm still not satisfied with its derivative replacement.

8 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Job (2001–2002)

9/10

Any fan of 'Rescue Me' who missed seeing 'The Job' should kick themselves

15 October 2010

When this program first came out a decade ago, it grew on me as one of the best shows on television at the time. My wife didn't understand what I saw in it, finding Dennis Leary too annoying at first (like a number of his eventual fans). It was funny, it was smart, it pushed the envelope, and it dealt with real subjects and drama on occasion in ways that were genuine and not too preachy nor over-earnest.

I was irritated beyond words when ABC canceled it. A few years later I came across Rescue Me, already in its second season, on cable. And as that series progressed, it came to be one of my favorite shows for the very same reasons. And some of the very same cast. And my wife had the chance to let the program grow on her and eventually become one of her favorites.

Now, a decade later, I started re-watching DVDs of The Job, and I'm struck by how much "Rescue Me" is almost a cynical response to network television for canceling "The Job". The cast and crew are heavily the same, even down to characters in one later showing up in the other. And instead of playing an addicted, womanizing, Irish New York City cop who is only best at his job -- Rescue Me is a show about an addicted, womanizing, Irish New York City fireman who is only best at his job.

The writing and situational comedy is as funny as anything on Rescue Me, and characters like Jan (later Laura Miles on Rescue Me) are fantastic in their roles. About the only thing missing in The Job that distinguishes it from Rescue Me is the natural camaraderie of the firehouse kitchen table scenes -- something that naturally developed after 10 years of many of the same actors, writers, and producers working together.

Rescue Me succeeded on cable because it doesn't have the audience share requirements of network television to become an immediate, mass audience hit. But fans of Rescue Me who never watched The Job must see it -- do not pass go -- as the original concept and execution of the very same program.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Audition (1999)

6/10

Great psychological terror flick nearly wrecked by a cop-out climax

4 January 2009

The movie is executed generally quite well. It really nails "creepy" in a very constructive way. The acting is quite good, and the build-up of the plot is certainly worth the wait -- though you need to be at least 45 minutes in before you realize you're watching a horror film.

Unfortunately, the most controversial part of the movie, the gruesome and sadistic climax near the end, almost ruins the entire work. The movie was excellently executing a psychological terror/horror flick. And even with implied blood and gore, and a little look here and there, it still worked. It's this narrow balance between the implicitness of psychological terror and explicitness of physical violence that provides great tension in these kinds of stories. Hitchcock's "Psycho" worked so well because it didn't have to show you everything and wallow in it.

But that's precisely where this movie comes apart, because suddenly Miike seems compelled to show you everything and wallow in it. And with that, the movie's psychological terror gets lost. In a scene that could have made the movie twice as powerful by cutting the scene to a tenth of its length, we're suddenly watching a different movie made by a different director with different purposes for a different audience. I felt like how an action flick junkie must feel when the director insists on shoehorning a love scene in the plot just to appeal to the non-core audience of the film.

And with that, Miike scored big points with squeamish teenagers wanting to hold hands -- and lost massive points with me... and with what he had spent the prior 90 minutes delicately building. As a result, the climax is a cowardly cop-out for a movie that had no need for its brief but bizarre moment of self-indulgent excesses.

It's all not a total loss, however. There's enough redeeming parts of the film that make it still worth watching. But this is one movie where the Directors Cut should really be just that: more cut, and less "more". At least when it comes to the film reel. Unfortunately, that will never happen, because it seems all of the talk about this film is based more on its worst scene than on the other redeeming 105 minutes.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Bus 174 (2002)

9/10

A movie that haunted me for a long time

10 March 2007

I've seen excellent documentaries about hostage situations before (e.g., One Day in September). While the storytelling, per se, was very good, it wasn't top notch. And sure, there are some heavy-handed messages and biases in the documentary. But on the whole, I thought the director inter-weaved different viewpoints on the events -- from middle class citizens to SWAT team members to prisoners who grew up in the favelas. But a few things about this film made it more memorable than many of the others.

For one, the access to video coverage is astounding. The multiple angles, the slow-motion footage... combined with how this event played out provided the sort of visibility that many people wish we had for JFK's assassination.

Another was the cultural context. There's quite a lot about the organization of the police force, the crowd reaction to the situation, the Brazilian conditions of poverty and homelessness, etc., that are very foreign to many Western ways of thinking.

And oddly, some of the contributed footage of this film is stunningly beautiful. Using sweeping helicopter vistas of Rio, it's good and bad neighborhoods, it's churches and official palaces -- it all provided a vibrant and even loving context to the troubled city in which these events take place on a much smaller scale.

4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Shakes the Clown (1991)

9/10

Much maligned in its time, but it aged like fine wine

5 January 2004

A reviewer at the Boston Globe once called this, "The Citizen Kane of alcoholic clown movies." Given the number of points of comparison, who could argue?

I was reminded of this when I recently saw the 2003 movie, "Bad Santa" -- which was a similar one-joke, cynical comedy about an obnoxious alcoholic employed as a character meant to bring joy into the lives of children. (The name "Shakes" takes on a whole new meaning when the lead character attempts to detox.) If that one joke works, so goes the movie. So for comparison, I recently rented it not long after seeing "Bad Santa."

While Bad Santa received a great number of favorable critical reviews, this movie wasn't as fortunate. Upon further review, I have to say that this movie never got the credit it deserved.

Is it a great movie? Oh no. This is a movie that attempts to be so bad and foul, rolling in its own filth, that best targets people with the right, low-expectation mindset. But you could also say that of "There's Something About Mary."

It employs humor in some of the background scenes a la "Airplane." Its use of cheesy 70s actors is pure genius and helps complete the joke. (Nevermind Robin Williams, an early Adam Sandler, and the then-future voice of Sponge Bob Squarepants as the evil Binky the Clown.) If you can manage a smirk during John Waters' "Mondo Trasho," you'll likely find the movie to be quite funny overall.

It's Bobcat's opus, and its no wonder he never really made much of anything since; the same was true for Orson Wells after "Citizen Kane"...

25 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Bad Santa (2003)

7/10

The Citizen Kane of Alcoholic Santa movies

3 January 2004

Bad Santa is a funny movie with equal parts drama, but that's just one person's opinion.

To appreciate it, you have to have a cynical streak about the level of smarm in holiday movies. And like the movie "Waiting for Guffman" (which I hated -- a major exception for me to Christopher Guest movies), it's a one-joke movie. If that joke (an abusive, alcoholic Santa) doesn't work for you, it's going to be a really long, lame movie with characters you could care less about.

Oddly enough, the one movie that came to mind upon viewing this was the much-ignored (and deservedly maligned) 1992 classic, "Shakes the Clown" -- a movie which billed itself as "The Citizen Kane of Alcoholic Clown movies". While Shakes the Clown took an almost surreal angle (where the fact that all the characters happened to be clowns was some kind of irrelevant coincidence), Bad Santa is more firmly grounded in reality -- as stretched as it is.

Recommended only for select viewers.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

7/10

Jackson could have improved on the books' flaws

3 January 2004

Warning: Spoilers

What won't be said about this over-exposed and somewhat over-glorified movie by now?

It's fantastic that Jackson completed the series in tact, with great continuity, in an engaging fantasy -- staying true to much beloved books.

[***SPOILERS AHEAD***]

That said, Jackson arguably missed an opportunity to develop a movie that improved upon the flaws in the source books. The much-publicized never-ending story ending is just one. Making 45 minutes out of an appendix was more than a bit of a waste. And 45 minutes of crying, hugging hobbits tested my patience far too long.

At the same time, I couldn't help but feel that these characters -- who had time to develop in the movie as little more than monster-bait -- made no emotional connection to me over the past 3 movies. And yet I felt wholly manipulated by 45 minutes of tears and hugging as if Jackson was trying to get an emotional response out of me that was never there to begin with. But at least it wasn't as horrid as the Star Wars Ewok conclusion...

And then there's Lord Denethor -- written into the books, but a character whose self-immolation death wish for himself and his remaining son added absolutely zilch to the story and movie. But Jackson, staying true to the books, left in what was useless storyline fodder -- fodder that should have otherwise staved off my early rush to the bathroom by being left on the cutting room floor. My kingdom for an editor...

That said, what's good definitely outweighs the flaws. A very good, albeit not great, movie.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The French Connection (1971)

8/10

No, they really don't make them like they used to

26 May 2003

The challenge with old movies considered classics -- the Citizen Kanes, the On The Waterfronts -- is that it's sometimes hard to discern the masterpiece within the context of the time of their release. The greatest impacts of many films have become formula ever since -- repeated over and over again and even embellished each time.

This is one of those movies that still captures a bit of its impact despite the years. Sure, there's a thin plotline. The acting is a little over-the-top at times -- even if it is great overall. The chase scenes have been diluted over time, but there's cat-and-mouse suspense that still pulls you in.

You can see how this movie influenced a great number of network TV detective shows that followed -- even if you couldn't get away with a lot of movie language and violence on TV.

More surprising was the realization that this is a film that I could not see being made today. There would be a lot more emphasis on the chase scenes, with more shoot-outs and explosions. And while the film doesn't give you any indication of the characters' lives beyond detective work, today the film wouldn't be released without some leading female love interest forced into the plot by Hollywood bean counters looking to up their 21-54 female demographic.

Sometimes, if you look in the right places, you can find appreciation for a film's impact from another era.

1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

6/10

Matrix Overloaded: Great eye candy, overwrought plot

17 May 2003

Warning: Spoilers

If you haven't seen the first Matrix movie, this sequel is utterly incomprehensible. For those who have seen the first, it manages to be just incomprehensible.

It seems that the Wachowski brothers took a clever original idea and infused it with a huge budget and equivalent Hollywood hype, took themselves too seriously, and allowed the cliches of other huge-budget Hollywood action blockbusters influence their decisions.

On the good side, the movie oozes with style -- in character appearance, set, and in the original creation of the "action stylist" profession. The movie works well as a series of loosely connected vignettes constructed to deliver violence, special effects, and/or character interactions.

But as a whole, it breaks down under the weight of a thin plot that tries to be too heavy. The philosophy of choice is laquered on too thickly -- as if the screenwriting required emergency plot implant surgery during development. The man vs. machines theme borders too close to the Terminator franchise. The epic battle theme steals too much from Lord of the Rings and Star Wars (and in fact, during the movie's massive Zion "rave" scene, I couldn't help but think "Ewok party for the new millennium"). You're left thinking, "Haven't I seen all this 20 times before?"

But the eye candy is good. In fact, this would probably be a much better movie experience if I couldn't understand English. (A common theme I've noticed among Keanu Reeves movies.) This is exactly the kind of "flying monkeys from space" American movie that Eddie Izzard quotes in his "Dressed to Kill" -- the spectacle is so grand that you can't help but shove more money into the concession stands for a steady diet of popcorn and soda.

And without adding any spoilers on the ending, let's just say that early on you can completely foresee the potential for the movie to end with parallels to what Star Wars did with "The Empire Strikes Back" (as the second of three movies). Thus if Zion's rave scene didn't satisfy the Ewok requirement for "The Matrix Revolutions," I fear what vile horrors the Wachowskis are going to deliver in Fall 2003. 6/10

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Waiting for Guffman (1996)

2/10

fast forward from Spinal Tap to Best In Show

5 April 2003

This film was an anomaly compared to the bookends of Spinal Tap and Best In Show. Parody and caricature are at the essence of the comedy of these three films, but Guffman comes off far more contrived, less clever, and more mean-spirited. The result is a comedy that rests on a foundation that you find small-town folk backwards and funny in their own right, and the movie comes down like a house of cards if you don't buy into this premise. There's little else to keep it afloat.

Which isn't to say that small-town folk can't be the source of some really good, mean-spirited humor. But unfortunately, there is very little humor that works beyond this one-dimensional gimmick, which is executed poorly.

The characters drone and whine on about their petty small-town issues, quirks, senses of importance, and problems. You care for none of them, turning the cast into a circus of annoying dinner guests whose idiosyncrasies are too pathetic to find legitimate humor in.

Maybe if you grew up in a small town and wanted to exact your revenge on your small-minded, petty neighbors, this will come off as hilarious. But for me, it came off as boring, uninspired, and about as dynamically funny as a bad British comedy of manners. Not worth the investment of time to even watch: 2 out of 10.

4 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Sordid Lives (2000)

2/10

why did they even bother?

4 April 2003

It's difficult to be sure why this movie was ever made. It does not seem to have much of any point. The comedy tries to hard and stretches too much to even come close to working. Without the comedy working, any remaining plot or other structure seems embarrasingly absent.

The one highlight of the film is the performance by Beth Grant as Sissy. She masters her role here, injecting hilarious inflection and mannerisms to the film ... even where the scriptwriters have fallen flat (which is the norm for this movie). Bonnie Bedelia's Latrelle and Ann Walker's La Vonda are also good performances, though not as memorable. Leslie Jordan plays his role of Brother Boy well also, but unfortunately his character is more annoying than shocking or interesting.

As for the movies major failures, there are too many to count. For one personal bias, I have to confess that I thought "Best in Show" and "Spinal Tap" were excellent, funny movies, while "Waiting for Guffman" was a complete bore and forced its laughs too hard (and they weren't very funny). Like "Waiting for Guffman", this movie relies heavily on your capacity to find the mere existence of small-town, backwoods people hilarious at face value. If you're not convinced by this premise, the caricatures are too over-the-top and annoying.

Watching this film was like watching old films where merely playing an alcoholic -- a la Foster Brooks on the Dean Martin Roasts -- was the entire foundation for comedy. Here the court jesters are rednecks, but it takes a lot more than caricatures to make good comedy. The result is a movie that comes off like a more deviant episode of "Mama's Family"... just replace Carol Burnett with Bonnie Bedelia.

There are two gay sub-plots to this movie that really seem to have no real connection other than the writers came up with the hair-brained formula of, "take rednecks (=funny); add gays (=funnier)". But at the same time, the movie tries to put on this gay acceptance posture at the same time it's also trying to use gayness as a laugh reflex. Hypocritical.

And why bother with Olivia Newton John at all? Talk about pointless window-dressing.

I lost patience with this film once the focus was off Beth Grant, and the rest of the film careened like a ghost-riding semi down a cliff.

If you think rednecks and gayness are comedic in their own right, you may think this is a great film. But if not, chances are that you'll find this movie doesn't have a wooden leg to stand on. Despite some redeeming performances, this was unquestionably among the 2-3 worst movies I've seen among the past 50.

6 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Ring (2002)

7/10

Not bad for a horror movie

31 March 2003

Warning: Spoilers

Scary movies have had something of a renaissance over the past few years. After the devil-baby prime time of the early 1970s, the genre fell into horrible self-parody, high school squeal reflex actions, sex-and-death associations for post-pubescents, the franchising of countless sequels, and quick pocket change for many a B movie queen.

But just when the self-parody-parody set in (e.g. "Scary Movie"), so came a few experiments that worked: The Sixth Sense, The Blair Witch Project, etc. The Ring, owing to its Japanese origins free from the American massacre of the American massacre film, qualifies among them. While it falls short on a lot of levels, many criticisms stem from my improved expectations from scary movies of late.

To its credit, the movie delivers the scares. There's enough to keep your interest throughout the film, and for the most part the movie rides the right side of the scary-silly line. There's a lot of good and convincing acting. There's a good plot with the right amount of the unexplained to keep you guessing -- a nice change from most American movies where subtlety comes with a sledgehammer.

But therein also lies some of its flaws. In the end there are clearly too many questions and inconsistencies left behind. For every question that might be best left unanswered for effect (***spoiler*** : for example, how was Samara conceived, and what made her evil), there were multiple inconsistencies in the plotlines that left the movie feeling incomplete. Other areas were spelled out that either detracted from the plot or added nothing (***spoiler***: Did you really have to show Samara crawling out the the TV? ***non-spoiler***: And what did it add that Aidan turned out to be the son of Rachel and Noah in some kind of Darth Vader-lite plotline?).

As for plotline, to its credit, many parts worked. However, some did not. There were a few scenes where I had a far greater urge to laugh (and did) at a ridiculous situation than be frightened by it. And while unravelling the mystery makes for a good story, the 40,000-ft view of this movie is little more than a fatalistic episode of Scooby Doo.

Sorry, but contrary to some opinions here, the child actor (David Dorfman) who played Aidan was stiff, annoying, and wholly unconvincing. It made me realize how much of a joke "Sixth Sense" could have been without Mr. Osment. By the end I was hoping for some kind of mythical man-month math, wanting Aidan to watch 7 copies of the tape so they could eliminate his character in a single day. But the performances by Naomi Watts and particularly Brian Cox are solid.

Some scenes interestingly struck me as something lifted completely out of Japanese comic books or anime -- like the scene where Noah is first walking up to Rachel's apartment in the rain in his hooded coat, his wet hair flying about.

The fact that I wrote this much about it says something. Despite all its flaws, it's a good movie (7/10). But the gaping holes and questions at the end are too much to call it a classic by any means.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Catch Me If You Can (2002)

6/10

disappointing execution and little concern for characters

22 March 2003

First, the good news. Christopher Walken fans will appreciate the one gem of his movie -- his supporting performance. After that, there isn't much to hold this movie together.

Leonardo DiCaprio is mis-cast as someone who thrived on their anonymity -- while he happens to be one of the most over-exposed actors in Hollywood. Tom Hanks, along with his role in Road to Perdition, adds little dynamic to a key character -- seemingly taking a parallel to Dan Aykroyd's film career: a once-notable star playing forgettable roles, getting chubby from too much food and sitting on the laurels of former glory.

There are a few moments of interesting character situations, but none of the characters made me care about them (besides Walken). Characters are discarded so frequently in the chase for DiCaprio that the movie seems as shiftless as his character's life. While this conveys the nature of his on-the-run existence, it leads to a film with more of a laundry list of brief encounters rather than any richer storytelling.

There's an attempt to create a surrogate father-son relationship between DiCaprio and Hanks, but it is handled superficially and merely suggested. There's probably more they could have done to bring out an interesting dynamic between these two key characters. More also could have been done to bring out the dynamic of the real father's influence on the son.

The movie employs the classic switch between past and future scenes, but there's no mystery in them other than the mundane details of how they will inevitably connect -- as the audience presumes from the start. A few clever escapes here and there, but they are hardly captivating, let alone memorable.

To its credit, making a story about a fugitive guilty of fraudulent checks is hardly Hollywood sexy these days. But the entire experience left me expecting more from this movie.

0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Horse Feathers (1932)

9/10

Comedy, song, and no egotistical directors

23 February 2003

Sure, the movie is filled with visual and verbal puns that are funny half the time and "groaners" for the other half. But the rapid-fire delivery keeps you on your toes, and for every weak crack there's something good around the corner. The musical numbers, though few, a great period pieces with great comic underpinnings. And clocking in at 67 minutes, it's refreshing to remember what movies were like before the egos of directors emasculated the role of editor.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Bound (1996)

6/10

Entertaining in spite of itself

26 August 2002

The plot and the acting manage to save what could have easily been a cult favorite for mockery. The storyline adds solid suspense, the cast is excellent, and there are cinematic moments of Wachowski fame.

However, the dialog is abysmal, over-the-top, and dripping with blunt hyperbole. The Wachowski brothers seem to have learned everything they need to know about lesbians from letters to Penthouse. What's supposed to be steamy and erotic is marked instead by head trauma with a blunt-force script: there isn't one iota of subtlety (IMO, completely insulting the audience's intelligence) and the dialog makes the B-movie film noir of the 40s seem like natural conversation.

That said, the movie ultimately saves itself from these flaws overall. The mob stars are all excellent, and Tilly's and Gershon's characters manage to make you look beyond your eye-rolling over their interactions.

1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Cabin Boy (1994)

1/10

cabin atrocity

6 June 1999

I don't mind David Letterman -- even if he can really irritate whenever he gets hung up on a lame joke he keeps repeating throughout an entire show. This movie was designed for his audience, and yet there isn't a single good joke worthy of repeating even for ridicule's sake.

As of 1999, this still ranks #1 on my list of the worst movies I have ever seen.

3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

witness-7

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed